✓ SAFE: Export schema as SQL or JSON. Includes tables, indexes, views, triggers. SQL for recreation, JSON for analysis.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Uses '✓ SAFE' to indicate a non-destructive read operation, which is the key behavioral trait in absence of annotations. Discloses included objects, but lacks details on potential side effects or prerequisites.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded with safety indicator and purpose. However, it repeats the title verbatim, wasting space that could describe parameters. Still concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. Does not explain default format, optional table filtering, or the return format (string/blob). Lacks guidance on output handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'format', 'tables', or 'database_name' parameters. It mentions inclusion of all tables, contradicting the optional 'tables' filter. No added meaning beyond parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides minimal guidance: 'SQL for recreation, JSON for analysis' hints at usage scenarios, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use relative to siblings like describe_table or database_info. No alternatives mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.